Results
Displaying 6141 - 6150 of 6638
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Stephens v. State | 247 Ga. App. 719 (2001) | 247 Ga. App. 719 (2001) |
Defendant was accused and convicted of 17 counts of cruelty to animals for harboring fighting dogs in deplorable conditions. Defendant challenged the sufficiency of the evidence and the probation terms. The appellate court found, in light of the evidence, any rational trier of fact could have found the elements of cruelty to animals beyond a reasonable doubt. Further, defendant failed to overcome the presumption that the probation the trial court imposed was correct. |
Case |
| U.S. v. Crutchfield | 26 F.3d 1098 (11th Cir. 1994) | 39 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 1206 (1994) |
The court reversed the district court's judgment of convictions against defendants for the illegal importation and the intent to sell iguanas in the United States because of prosecutorial misconduct. The court held that the prosecutor wasted valuable money in pursuing irrelevant testimony, and improperly questioned defendants and their witnesses after repeated warnings from the district court judge. |
Case |
| Scales v. State | 601 S.W.3d 380 (Tex. App. 2020) | Defendant, Jade Derrick Scales, was convicted of two counts of cruelty to non-livestock animals which constituted a state felony. Michelle Stopka had found two puppies in an alley and took them in. On February 8, 2015, Defendant confronted Stopka in her front yard holding a knife and wearing a mask and brass knuckles. Leonard Wiley, the man Stopka was residing with, confronted the Defendant and a brief confrontation ensued which resulted in both individuals sustaining a cut. Stopka soon discovered that both puppies had been sliced open and were bleeding. The puppies did not survive their injuries. Defendant’s sentence was enhanced to a second-degree felony based on the finding of use or exhibition of a deadly weapon during the commission of, or during immediate flight following, the commission of the offense and the fact that the Defendant had a previous conviction for a second-degree-felony offense of burglary of a habitation. Defendant was sentenced to seven years and a fine of $2,000. The Defendant subsequently appealed. The first issue raised on appeal by the Defendant was the deadly weapon finding which the the Court found was appropriate. The second issue regarded a jury instruction error. The Defendant contended that the trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury that a deadly-weapon finding is only appropriate when the weapon is used or exhibited against a human being. The Court found that although a deadly-weapon instruction should not have been given, the error was not egregious and therefore overruled the issue because a jury could have reasonably believed that the Defendant used the same knife to both inflict wounds upon the puppies and Leonard. The failure to provide such a jury instruction did not materially affect the jury’s deliberations or verdict. The third issue raised by the Defendant was that he was provided ineffective assistance of counsel. The Court overruled this issue as well. The Fourth issue raised by Defendant was that his prosecution was based on two identical indictments for the same conduct committed in one criminal episode which violated double jeopardy and due process principles. The Defendant did not preserve his claim of double jeopardy and the Court further found that two separate dogs were the object of the criminal act and each dog could have been prosecuted separately. No double jeopardy violation was found on the face of the record and, therefore, the Defendant did not qualify for an exception to the preservation rule. The fifth issue Defendant raised was that his sentence was illegal because the range of punishment for the offense for which he was convicted was illegally enhanced. The Court overruled this issue because his conviction was not illegally enhanced. The trial court’s judgment was ultimately affirmed. | Case | |
| AZ - Initiatives - Proposition 102 (voter wildlife initatives) | Proposition 102 (2000) | This 2000 Arizona ballot proposition sought to restrict voter initiatives related to wildlife. It was defeated with only 37.5% voting for the measures. According to the summary by the Arizona Legislative Council, Proposition 102 directs the State to manage wildlife in the public trust to assure the continued existence of wildlife populations. Public trust is a legal concept relating to the ownership, protection and use of natural resources. Under the public trust, the State must manage wildlife for the public benefit, which includes both present and future generations. Proposition 102 would also amend the Arizona Constitution to require that any initiative measure relating to the taking of wildlife does not go into effect unless it is approved by at least two-thirds of the voters who vote on the measure. Currently, the Arizona Constitution requires a simple majority vote for initiative measures. The two-thirds requirement would also apply to measures authorizing or restricting (1) the methods of taking wildlife (2) the seasons when wildlife may be taken. The two-thirds requirement would not apply to legislative enactments or to measures that the Legislature refers to the voters. | Statute | |
| US - AWA - 1985 Public Law 99-198 | 1985 PL 99-198 | The set of amendments that Congress adopted in December of 1985 focused almost entirely on the issue of animal research, (1) the minimum level of care is stated with more specificity, (2) animal research facilities are required to create Institutional Animal Committees, which include the presence of a public member from outside the facility, (3) trade secrets of research facilities are protected by a new section of the AWA. | Statute | |
| WI - Ordinances - 59.52. County administration | W. S. A. 59.52 | WI ST 59.52 | This Wisconsin statute provides a schedule for destruction of obsolete town records, which includes dog licenses after three years. | Statute |
| Connecticut General Statutes: Chapter 331: Section 6367 | Conn. Gen. Stat. § 6367 (1918). | Section 6367 of Chapter 329 from the 1918 General Laws of Connecticut covers the transportation of wild animals. Specifically, the statute establishes the duty of care that must be given to the public when transporting a wild animal. | Statute | |
| MA - Fur - Chapter 131. Inland Fisheries and Game and Other Natural Resources. | M.G.L.A. 131 § 80A | MA ST 131 § 80A | Massachusetts law provides that a person may not use or possess any trap for capturing furbearing mammals except for common mouse and rat traps, nets, and box or cage traps. Traps designed to capture and hold a furbearing mammal by gripping the mammal's body, or body part are prohibited, including steel jaw leghold traps, padded leghold traps, and snares. This prohibition does not apply to federal, state, or municipal departments for the protection from threats to human health and safety (e.g., beaver or muskrat caused flooding or damage). | Statute |
| US - Elephant - African Elephant Conservation Act | 16 USC 4201 - 4246 | A U.S. federal law that reaffirms the endangered status of African elephants and allocates money toward conservation efforts. | Statute | |
| MD - Humane officers - § 1-1314. Humane society or animal control officers; education and training requirements | MD Code, Local Government, § 1-1314 | MD LOCAL GOVT § 1-1314 | This Maryland law, added in 2021, creates education and training requirements for new humane and animal control officers. The training requires satisfactory completion of at least 80 hours of animal care and control coursework as described in the law. There are also continuing education requirements on an annual basis. | Statute |